HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lightning @ Canes, 7 p.m., RBCPNC Center; FS-CR

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-05-2012, 11:01 PM
  #226
Lazyking
Never Forget
 
Lazyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
Yes but when you're going that fast and the goalie is not even in the crease, not much you can do there except try to jump out of the way like Sutter did.

It's not like Garon was in the crease. Imagine if Garon was going to play the puck and Sutter was racing to it, do you call roughing if he barrels into the goalie while reaching for the puck?

Same thing here.

Lazyking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 11:02 PM
  #227
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mebanecanesfan View Post
Exactly. Obviously I'm missing something or a complete dumba$$ because I can't figure out how you(Bleedgreen)look at that play and think that it was a penalty? How does someone look at that "collision" and deem it running over the Goalie when the replays show he made minimal contact to the Goalie. The Goalie was not close to his crease either. I don't get it and I'm not alone in this thinking either. Puck daddy on his Blog the next day posed the question on what people thought after viewing the video and the vast majority that I read agreed that it was not a penalty. So 1 of 2 things applies here. Either you're unwilling to concede that maybe just maybe your initial view of the play was wrong and the rest of Modern Civilization is right on this or you and maybe 5 other people are the only ones who have this right and the 6 Billion other dumba$$es on the Planet are dead wrong and need to attend the basics of understanding Hockey!
Because I hold my own views of hockey and I could care less what bloggers or other hockey fans think.


The initial talks I had with this others at least saw that it's a 50/50 play and a tough call or no call the other way. It's fine to say you see both sides and just think the canes side should've won out is fine but to flat out say the ref had no right to make the call is preposterous to me. I would've called it myself based on holding sutter responsible for the route he took and not being able to stop himself. Stamkos did nothing but minimal contact that looks like of he did anything he tried to pull sutter back.

I feel no need to relent my opinion because it's apparently now a solo one. I feel no need to "concede" I'm wrong due to being overwhelmingly disagreed with. I watch the play now and feel the same way I did. I absolutely think the masses are wrong. To me it's at most a 50/50 play that could go either way, but I honestly feel pretty strongly the right call was made and is easily justified.

bleedgreen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 11:06 PM
  #228
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 500
You guys are clinging so much to this whole he wasn't in the crease thing. You can't hit the goalie anywhere. Period. You bowl over the goalie behind the net you get called. No difference here. Trying to not do it means nothing. He did it. He charged and knocked him over. It would've been ww3 if they hadn't called it and even worse if we had scored.

bleedgreen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 11:43 PM
  #229
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
Out of curiosity I would like to see that qoute if you've got a link.
From Chip, immediately after the game:

Quote:
Jokinen said he talked with Peel in first period. Said Peel apologized for no-call in OT in Anaheim when Jokinen was tripped by Perry.

...

Jokinen said Peel approached again after Sutter penalty in OT. Told Jokinen other ref made call and there was "nothing he could do."

...

Chip Alexander ‏ @ice_chip

Jokinen lobbied for Stamkos to also get penalty but didn't get it. Jokinen: "We've lost points because of those breaks. It's a tough loss."
Since the new Twitter format, I've got no idea how to post links to them, but they're all right there under his @ice_chip name. Didn't include the commentary from some of the other respected (at least, IMO) Cane analysts like DeCock or Forslund.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
You guys are clinging so much to this whole he wasn't in the crease thing. You can't hit the goalie anywhere. Period. You bowl over the goalie behind the net you get called. No difference here. Trying to not do it means nothing. He did it. He charged and knocked him over. It would've been ww3 if they hadn't called it and even worse if we had scored.
Except there is a factor when the goalie's out of the crease:

Quote:
69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
That is exactly what happened here. Garon was hit outside the crease, Sutter made a reasonable effort (more than reasonable, IMO) to avoid such contact. According to that rule, a resulting goal would have been allowed if they called incidental contact. I think it would have been more than fair to call incidental contact, wipe out an possible resulting goal, given no penalty and simply gone to the faceoff.

Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 11:51 PM
  #230
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,103
vCash: 500
Did Peel actually say the call was wrong?

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 11:57 PM
  #231
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Did Peel actually say the call was wrong?
I thought I remember reading that, but it simply could have been fan addition in the rants after the game. If I can't find it, I'm wrong about him saying the call was wrong.

Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 01:14 AM
  #232
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
From Chip, immediately after the game:



Since the new Twitter format, I've got no idea how to post links to them, but they're all right there under his @ice_chip name. Didn't include the commentary from some of the other respected (at least, IMO) Cane analysts like DeCock or Forslund.



Except there is a factor when the goalie's out of the crease:



That is exactly what happened here. Garon was hit outside the crease, Sutter made a reasonable effort (more than reasonable, IMO) to avoid such contact. According to that rule, a resulting goal would have been allowed if they called incidental contact. I think it would have been more than fair to call incidental contact, wipe out an possible resulting goal, given no penalty and simply gone to the faceoff.
i guess i think the fact that imo he tackled him doesnt equate to enough of a reasonable effort to me, or can be classified as incidental contact. he was no doubt trying, it just shouldnt matter in this case. it was a pretty large collision. i think your trying to use these wordings to a situation that just doesnt fit. credit for the effort but it just doesnt add up to me. if the play in question resulted in the canes winning this would not possibly hold up as a proper example of this rule imo. i think this rule was for someone being held on the edge of the crease who bumps against the goalie while being held by dman, and a goal being scored on the other side. using it this case with sutter flying over him is more than a bit of a stretch. just my opinion of course.

and info passed down twitter through jokinen or however that worked in there isnt gonna work for peel throwing his partner under the bus publicly. id need video/audio of a ref actually doing that to his partner before id ever believe it, or at least a respected publication having it in quotes.

look, i get it, you want to argue this to death. i respect the fact you want to fight it but youre never gonna convince me this was a bad call. one that couldve gone another way? sure. would it be a controversial play no matter how it went? hell yes. im not saying you have to agree with me, but for either side of this argument to say the other doesnt exist is retarded. i get why canes fans dont like it, sutter tried really hard - but in the end he ran over the goalie and the ref has a right to call that. "incidental contact" = "gray area". as in its the refs discretion as to what he thinks incidental contact is. you want it so your team wins. didnt happen this time. perfectly legit call.


Last edited by bleedgreen: 03-06-2012 at 01:24 AM.
bleedgreen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 01:23 AM
  #233
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
and info passed down twitter through jokinen or however that worked in there isnt gonna work for peel throwing his partner under the bus publicly. id need video/audio of a ref actually doing that to his partner before id ever believe it, ir at least a respected publication having it in quotes.
...Not to get into the whole "Old people and technology" stereotype, but Twitter and journalism pretty much go hand-and-hand right now. If the tweets are from a respected reporter, it's the same thing has having that reporter put it in a "respected publication" somewhere.

The quotes came from Jokinen when conducting an interview with Chip Alexander, the Canes beat writer. Twitter was used to get the info out immediately after the game, rather than write an article and have it come out the day after.

So what I'm saying is, by discrediting the quotes, you're either saying Jokinen is making up the situation with regards to Peel or Chip is making up the interview with Jokinen.

Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 01:35 AM
  #234
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
...Not to get into the whole "Old people and technology" stereotype, but Twitter and journalism pretty much go hand-and-hand right now. If the tweets are from a respected reporter, it's the same thing has having that reporter put it in a "respected publication" somewhere.

The quotes came from Jokinen when conducting an interview with Chip Alexander, the Canes beat writer. Twitter was used to get the info out immediately after the game, rather than write an article and have it come out the day after.

So what I'm saying is, by discrediting the quotes, you're either saying Jokinen is making up the situation with regards to Peel or Chip is making up the interview with Jokinen.
ive got twitter on my iphone and read it every day. from all the same sources as you, likely. give me a break. chip says that jussi says that the ref totally through his partner under the bus.....

you want to go into court with that one go ahead, im not accepting it as part of this conversation. it isnt the same thing as publishing it. an editor/fact checker and a publication put their reputation behind what they print and put online. to say the same publications stand behind what their reporters tweet about what someone told them in the locker room is ludicrous. it was very irresponsible of chip to say such a thing in such a forum if he did, and id assume legally someone could go after him for such a thing. to say twitter is a responsible media forum....

if he writes in the paper or on the papers official space online then we'll talk. till then its heresay crap. even if the conversation happened how do you know jussi didnt just take what he wanted to hear from it? the notion of a ref blindsiding his partner to a pissed off player is as far fetched as anything ive ever heard.

bleedgreen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 05:59 AM
  #235
What the Faulk
The Real Swede Shady
 
What the Faulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 26,969
vCash: 500
I'm so glad Garon is still alive with the way you describe that collision, Bleed. And just because you don't accept Twitter as a "responsible media form" doesn't mean that it isn't. It is just as likely to contain true/false infomation as any publication, and the journalist/blogger/writer is still very responsible for what they put out there.

But in the end, you're right. No one is going to change anyone's mind and everyone should just agree to disagree. When I woke up this morning I couldn't believe that there was still a back and forth on this. Well...yes I can considering how much time is spent arguing about players like Peters, LaRose, Spacek, Sanguinetti, etc (some of which I claim responsibility for).

What the Faulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 06:48 AM
  #236
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the Faulk View Post
And just because you don't accept Twitter as a "responsible media form" doesn't mean that it isn't. It is just as likely to contain true/false infomation as any publication, and the journalist/blogger/writer is still very responsible for what they put out there.
In fairness to Bleed, where (Twitter or otherwise) did Peel says specifically the call was wrong.? I still haven't seen that anywhere. Maybe it is because I'm not savvy enough with this whole technology thingy in my advanced age.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 06:52 AM
  #237
What the Faulk
The Real Swede Shady
 
What the Faulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 26,969
vCash: 500
He didn't, as far as I know. I think BB just misremembered the quote. I knew exactly what he was referring to and had to double-check myself.

Still, my point still stands about Twitter as a source when the source is also a journalist. Many times a tweet is expanded upon in an article for a publication, anyway.

What the Faulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 08:42 AM
  #238
caniac315
Registered User
 
caniac315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 359
vCash: 100
I just read on Twitter that Daylight Savings Time begins this Sunday, but I don't believe this crazy information.

caniac315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 09:21 AM
  #239
CanesUltimate11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
If I recall the quote never says that Peel says the call was wrong, just that there was nothing he could do. Which could probably be easily read as going either way.

Given that he approched Jussi earlier to apologize for the blown call against the Ducks and may have still felt bad about it, I'm inclined to read it as Peel diplimaticly saying he thought it was bad call.

CanesUltimate11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 09:32 AM
  #240
garnetpalmetto
HFBoards Sponsor
 
garnetpalmetto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanesUltimate11 View Post
If I recall the quote never says that Peel says the call was wrong, just that there was nothing he could do. Which could probably be easily read as going either way.

Given that he approched Jussi earlier to apologize for the blown call against the Ducks and may have still felt bad about it, I'm inclined to read it as Peel diplimaticly saying he thought it was bad call.
Objection! Speculation!

garnetpalmetto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 09:39 AM
  #241
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanesUltimate11 View Post
If I recall the quote never says that Peel says the call was wrong, just that there was nothing he could do. Which could probably be easily read as going either way.

Given that he approched Jussi earlier to apologize for the blown call against the Ducks and may have still felt bad about it, I'm inclined to read it as Peel diplimaticly saying he thought it was bad call.
I was at the game and after reading those tweets, I don't interpret it that way. Peel really wan't in a position to comment. He was still at center ice and near the boards on the penalty box and not really in a position to say one way or another about the correctness of the call.

A lot of the guys were yelling at the refs after that. Jussi looked to be lobbying for some sort of call and I think he was just telling Jussi it wasn't his call (and rightfully so) so no sense arguing about it because there's nothing he could do.

Just my $0.02.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 09:58 AM
  #242
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
In fairness to Bleed, where (Twitter or otherwise) did Peel says specifically the call was wrong.? I still haven't seen that anywhere. Maybe it is because I'm not savvy enough with this whole technology thingy in my advanced age.
He didn't, and I admitted I was mistaken on that point. But to say Twitter isn't an acceptable form of media is simply showing your age. Yes, a journalist could put anything they want on their Twitter account. They're still responsible for that account and still could get hit with a libel suit if they write anything blatantly false. I doubt Chip would risk his career to make up an entire situation just to discredit a ref.

Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 10:06 AM
  #243
CanesUltimate11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
A lot of the guys were yelling at the refs after that. Jussi looked to be lobbying for some sort of call and I think he was just telling Jussi it wasn't his call (and rightfully so) so no sense arguing about it because there's nothing he could do.

Just my $0.02.
Could definitely also be the case. 6 one way, half-dozen the other I guess.

CanesUltimate11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 10:27 AM
  #244
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
He didn't, and I admitted I was mistaken on that point. But to say Twitter isn't an acceptable form of media is simply showing your age. .
You never know when to quit do you. Oh well, no sense getting sucked into another one of your childish diatribes. Carry on.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 10:39 AM
  #245
totalkev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
i guess i think the fact that imo he tackled him doesnt equate to enough of a reasonable effort to me, or can be classified as incidental contact. he was no doubt trying, it just shouldnt matter in this case. it was a pretty large collision.
This is the crux of the disagreement.

You believe Sutter "tackled" Garon. Those who have looked at the replay believe that not to be the case.

You believe it shouldn't matter that Sutter tried very hard to avoid a collision. Those who have read the rulebook believe that it does matter. Very much, in fact, since that is all that is required.

You believe it was a "large collision." Those who have chosen to believe the video evidence don't think it was that large, and looked a whole lot worse than it actually was.

So you can go on using terms like "tackled" and "large collision" and "roughing" but all you're doing is overselling your point of view in a last-ditch attempt to salvage any credibility out of a situation in which the facts don't back you up.

It makes you a good ref, actually. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, you have the whistle and you sold it. Good call.

But you're still wrong.

totalkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 10:50 AM
  #246
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
You never know when to quit do you. Oh well, no sense getting sucked into another one of your childish diatribes. Carry on.



Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 12:50 PM
  #247
impeach estaalo
timgleson
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,731
vCash: 500

impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 12:57 PM
  #248
halleJOKEL
strong as brickwall
 
halleJOKEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NC
Country: United States
Posts: 5,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandwagon cole canes View Post
PotY.

halleJOKEL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 03:10 PM
  #249
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
He didn't, and I admitted I was mistaken on that point. But to say Twitter isn't an acceptable form of media is simply showing your age. Yes, a journalist could put anything they want on their Twitter account. They're still responsible for that account and still could get hit with a libel suit if they write anything blatantly false. I doubt Chip would risk his career to make up an entire situation just to discredit a ref.
again, enough with your age crap. i use a jailbroken iphone to watch canes games on my ipad. i have twitter and rss to my lockscreen on my phone. im just as media/tech/gadget oriented as the majority of you. twitter is not a responsible credible news source. im gonna ask you to hesitate to talk down to me one more time in the tone youre using. no one is editing a journalists twitter account, if the league thought peel was apologizing to players for his partner, and that the info was going public i suspect they be very interested about that.

also, what jussi took from a conversation with a ref and repeated to chip is hardly usable. jussi was pissed, he couldve taken anything he wanted from the conversation. peel himself saying it in quotes from a reasonable source, saying it was a blown call would be something to talk about. the rest of this is smoke.

bleedgreen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 03:16 PM
  #250
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
This is the crux of the disagreement.

You believe Sutter "tackled" Garon. Those who have looked at the replay believe that not to be the case.

You believe it shouldn't matter that Sutter tried very hard to avoid a collision. Those who have read the rulebook believe that it does matter. Very much, in fact, since that is all that is required.

You believe it was a "large collision." Those who have chosen to believe the video evidence don't think it was that large, and looked a whole lot worse than it actually was.

So you can go on using terms like "tackled" and "large collision" and "roughing" but all you're doing is overselling your point of view in a last-ditch attempt to salvage any credibility out of a situation in which the facts don't back you up.

It makes you a good ref, actually. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, you have the whistle and you sold it. Good call.

But you're still wrong.
to watch that play and think sutter didnt make enough contact to take garon out is foolhardy. even if he did play it up the way its called he has every right to and every goalie in the league would do the same. getting personal about it isnt changing anything. ive seen the video many times, imo there is no way garon recovers from sutter hitting him so high up and back. what facts have i used that havent been backed up? what facts are you using to counter?

as far as sutters effort, it matters only in terms of incidental contact, which is the gray area here. if the ref thinks it is more than incidental contact he makes the call. he obviously did. the rule being shown backs him up. this is the original point on reffing. its all gray. you use the rules to back up your argument, not use them as an excuse to do nothing.

bleedgreen is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.